While nihilism is replacing the more traditional “Judeo-Christian ethic,” it remains a huge problem that the basically altruist “Judeo-Christian ethic” is incompatible with freedom, capitalism, and individual rights. Going “back to religion” is as much a dead end as going “forward with fascism.” That is, Obama and Romney were both on the wrong tracks.

Steve Stoddard on January 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Ayn Rand fan?

As much as I like some of what she has to say, Ayn Rand almost criminally misunderstood Christianity, leading her to suggest it was only an appropriate religion for slaves.

There’s nothing incompatible with Christianity and freedom, or capitalism, or individual rights. Ayn Rand and others seem to believe that Christianity is opposed to any form of pleasure or gratification. But that is hardly accurate.

For instance, sex is not against Christian morals. Christianity simply teaches that it should be done within marriage. Eating and enjoying a good meal is not a sin, but gluttony is. When you take a good thing and carry it to an extreme, it becomes bad.

Capitalism is simply making money. It is only sinful if you cheat someone else in order to make that money.

Those who chafe against any restrictions, who insist on living their lives in excess, may well reject the morals taught in the Christian faith. But in truth, unlimited indulgence is harmful, and ultimately not even possible in a society where others have the same rights. Sooner or later, one person’s rights conflict with another, and we have to face the fact that every freedom we have is inherently somewhat limited.

One very obvious example often given is the fact that our freedom of speech does not mean we have the right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. No freedom is absolute.

To bring it back to guns, our Second Amendment right is not absolute. It can be reasonably regulated. The problem we have is that the gun grabbers want to go beyond necessary limitations and start telling everybody, “you don’t need that.” And ultimately, the question is not “what do you absolutely need,” but “what restrictions are absolutely needed.”

The first question assumes you’re a ward of the state, and leads to politicians saying things such as, “nobody needs more than x rounds in a magazine.” The second question assumes you’re a free man, and leads to questions like, “If you’re a convicted felon, or mentally unstable and dangerous to others, is it finally time to restrict your access to guns.”

Pagan cultures have always been more violent than christian cultures because in pagan cultures the value of individual life is judged by the group as to it’s usefulness to the group…All pagan cultres are utilitarian by nature.

Paganism is a system that does not value life equally or beyond the inherent use of the living

Paganism is a system that organizes through the objectification of individuals to service the state.

Atheism is a Pagan religious system that substitutes the state and cult personalities that exemplify the values of the state in order to subjugate individuals to groups and to break traditional familial and tribal loyalties.

Judeo-Christian cultures are not primarily utilitarian and it is a fundamental principle within the value structure of the system that the value of the individual is intrinsic to the creation of that individual by their creator and that natural law governs the humane governance of the culture.

Judeo-Christian Religions strengthen the familial and tribal bonds of communities in dissent to the state if the values of the state thwart those bonds that promote the equal value of each and every life at every stage of life. This ideal philosophical and moral principle was realized more completely with the development of christianity from Judaism in particular. Christians abhorred human sacrifice,divorce,abortion and infanticide as well as the murder of the infirm,aged and the social outcasting of widows and incorporated a charity system as a social justice system beyond the earlier strictures of judaic law during the temple period.

workingclass artist on January 19, 2013 at 6:23 PM

There will always be agents of christian thought and action who will defy and undermine through christian charity,education,organization and just warfare the temporary tyranny of any pagan state.

workingclass artist on January 19, 2013 at 6:29 PM

.

listens2glenn on January 19, 2013 at 6:00 PM

.
If the militant athiests win, it’ll leave us with a reincarnation of the USSR. Ask a survivor of that era what life was like.

In their march toward a godless dystopia, athiests will care nothing for the body count they rack up or how many rights they trample. Because without a God, your ‘rights’ are only good until their koo-koo kangaroo court suddenly decides different.

Militant Christians aren’t going to back down, and militant atheists aren’t going to back down. Where does that leave us?

listens2glenn on January 19, 2013 at 6:00 PM

If the militant athiests win, it’ll leave us with a reincarnation of the USSR. Ask a survivor of that era what life was like.

In their march toward a godless dystopia, athiests will care nothing for the body count they rack up or how many rights they trample. Because without a God, your ‘rights’ are only good until their koo-koo kangaroo court suddenly decides different.

While nihilism is replacing the more traditional “Judeo-Christian ethic,” it remains a huge problem that the basically altruist “Judeo-Christian ethic” is incompatible with freedom, capitalism, and individual rights. Going “back to religion” is as much a dead end as going “forward with fascism.” That is, Obama and Romney were both on the wrong tracks.

Steve Stoddard on January 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Pagan cultures have always been more violent than christian cultures because in pagan cultures the value of individual life is judged by the group as to it’s usefulness to the group…All pagan cultres are utilitarian by nature.

Paganism is a system that does not value life equally or beyond the inherent use of the living

Paganism is a system that organizes through the objectification of individuals to service the state.

Atheism is a Pagan religious system that substitutes the state and cult personalities that exemplify the values of the state in order to subjugate individuals to groups and to break traditional familial and tribal loyalties.

Judeo-Christian cultures are not primarily utilitarian and it is a fundamental principle within the value structure of the system that the value of the individual is intrinsic to the creation of that individual by their creator and that natural law governs the humane governance of the culture.

Judeo-Christian Religions strengthen the familial and tribal bonds of communities in dissent to the state if the values of the state thwart those bonds that promote the equal value of each and every life at every stage of life. This ideal philosophical and moral principle was realized more completely with the development of christianity from Judaism in particular. Christians abhorred human sacrifice,divorce,abortion and infanticide as well as the murder of the infirm,aged and the social outcasting of widows and incorporated a charity system as a social justice system beyond the earlier strictures of judaic law during the temple period.

While nihilism is replacing the more traditional “Judeo-Christian ethic,” it remains a huge problem that the basically altruist “Judeo-Christian ethic” is incompatible with freedom, capitalism, and individual rights. Going “back to religion” is as much a dead end as going “forward with fascism.” That is, Obama and Romney were both on the wrong tracks.
Steve Stoddard on January 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM

.
Incompatible with freedom? Which freedom would this be exactly?
The freedom to sin? 2Peter 2:19,
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Incompatible with capitalism? What do you know of Scritpure’s teaching in this area? I suppose you are a SPE (self-proclaimed expert) on the Bible even though you don’t believe in it?

Incompatible with individual rights? Where do you think rights derive from? If there is not a God ultimately enforcing punishment against violatiors of your rights, then what value do your rights have? 2Peter 2:10,12-13,

10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
NeverLiberal on January 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Militant atheists will never accept the premise, that engaging in “hedonistic activities of pleasure” causes trouble for everyone around them.
Militant Christians will never concede that “hedonistic activities of pleasure” don’t cause problems for all others close around those practicing it.

In this country’s history, there has always been “sinful behavior”, and there’s more than room enough for Christians in that category. But it was always stigmatized, and looked down upon by EVERYBODY.
Even atheists felt a sense of public shame if sinful activities by individuals became “public information”.

That all began to change after approx 1968, with the Counter Culture movement.

Now, atheists demand that there be no “public stigma” upon what previously had been. It has progressed more, and more since the 1970s.
Christians are beginning to push back these progressive standards of redefining “normal”. That’s the real fight currently taking place within the Republican Party.

Militant Christians aren’t going to back down, and militant atheists aren’t going to back down. Where does that leave us?

We’ve even made progress in law when compared to the English law of Dickens time and in France you are presumed guilty and must prove innocence in the court of law.

Where we do seem to be making headway is in cultural stupidity, ably accomplished through poor education of both teachers and students, an irresponsible propagandistic media and corrupt politicians who lack the rhetorical skill to make the case and having demonstrated contempt toward the hoi polloi can’t even deliver bread and circuses properly to assuage the discontented.

Since we don’t have territories empires traditionally had to dump hoi polloi into to ease the pressure, this will probably end badly?

Afterall….The Romans collapsed and we had to muddle through the reconstruction period of the Middle Ages to get to the enlightenment and begin our American Adventure. Perhaps we will have to reconstruct again to rid ourselves of this progressive chimera which leads to lunacy and tyranny.

Violence in video games, violence in movies… it’s very easy to make a case against them.

.
I am not sure if you are simplifying the problem to fit your argument …

… or if you are so engulfed by the larger problem you are unable to see it.

Violence in video games and movies is the visible tip of the iceberg.

The OTHER 7/8ths of the iceberg is a society which celebrates sociopathic behaviors.

Sociopath – A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

We are producing them in record numbers (gang members, drug dealers, habitual liars, addicts, violent offenders, etc, etc, etc) and making celebrities out of the worst of them (50 cent, the Kartrashians, Lindsey Lohan, Chris Brown, the Kennedy family, Bill Clinton).

People are addicted to shows like “The Sopranos”, “Sons of Anarchy” and “Dexter”. All of which celebrate sociopathic values. I grew up in New York when the guys in organized crime were in their heyday. They were NOT conflicted about what they were doing for a living.

They were ruthless, cold blooded pigs.

The sociopaths even have the communication monopoly of the MSM keeping them in the limelight and pimping their behavior.

Exhibit A: The President of the United States of America who is daily celebrated for pursuing policies which are known to be destructive, promotes social disharmony and has a complete lack of conscience.

This is a country rapidly being destroyed by the media which has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to two things:

1) Creating “content” at the lowest possible cost celebrating the worst of ALL behaviors.

2) Insuring they will remain unfettered and unquestioned in their pursuit of $ 50+ billion in revenues annually by subsidizing the politicians who will turn a blind eye.

THIS is the conversation this country needs to have and, in theory, conservatives should be as committed to starting this conversation as they are to the Second Amendment.

]]>By: JadeNYUhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/19/on-condemning-our-violent-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-6654210
Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:14:36 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=239848#comment-6654210Although there were arcades and Ataris earlier, the modern age of video games is usually dated to the introduction of the Nintendo in the early 80s.

Over the past 30 years video games have gotten progressively more realistic and violent. At the same time, movies have become more violent and gory. And, throughout all of this, the rates of violent crime were going down. Not up. Down.

Now, a whole lot goes into crime stats – for instance, we could be a more violent people due to exposure to violent media but be more peaceable because of better enforcement.

I just think that before anyone talks of regulating, shaming, outlawing, etc they should actually do a better job of establishing a causative link between violent media and violent people. I realize there are some studies showing a link between boys watching wrestling and being more likely to play aggressively. There have also been studies of boys playing shooters like Call of Duty in squads and then being more likely to be helpful and cooperate afterward. In other words, no clear line between watching/playing X and having undesirable behavior Y.

We should establish that long before we talk about what needs to be done.

While nihilism is replacing the more traditional “Judeo-Christian ethic,” it remains a huge problem that the basically altruist “Judeo-Christian ethic” is incompatible with freedom, capitalism, and individual rights. Going “back to religion” is as much a dead end as going “forward with fascism.” That is, Obama and Romney were both on the wrong tracks.

Steve Stoddard on January 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Incompatible with freedom? Which freedom would this be exactly?
The freedom to sin? 2Peter 2:19,

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Incompatible with capitalism? What do you know of Scritpure’s teaching in this area? I suppose you are a SPE (self-proclaimed expert) on the Bible even though you don’t believe in it?

Incompatible with individual rights? Where do you think rights derive from? If there is not a God ultimately enforcing punishment against violatiors of your rights, then what value do your rights have? 2Peter 2:10,12-13,

10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;

Government’s place is to punish those who break the rules we collectively agree upon as defining civilized conduct.

Not true. The government’s role in life is to secure and protect individual rights.“Collective agreements” are not the civilized way to conduct government policy.

Steve Stoddard on January 19, 2013 at 12:53 PM

We the People of the United States

1. in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. establish Justice,
3. insure domestic Tranquility,
4. provide for the common defence,
5. promote the general Welfare,
6. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For us to combat the ‘Secular-Left’ media, we need to turn their butts OFF–and push cool alternatives.
One such alternative is INTELLECTUAL FROGLEGS…it’s Conservative Brain Candy. As discovered at MoonBattery and Alfonzo Rachel..

While nihilism is replacing the more traditional “Judeo-Christian ethic,” it remains a huge problem that the basically altruist “Judeo-Christian ethic” is incompatible with freedom, capitalism, and individual rights. Going “back to religion” is as much a dead end as going “forward with fascism.” That is, Obama and Romney were both on the wrong tracks.

Government’s place is to punish those who break the rules we collectively agree upon as defining civilized conduct. It’s not to preemptively regulate what we see, hear or legally do to make sure we don’t go off the deep end.

Jazz, these two sentences should be tattooed on the eyeballs of every legislator in the USA.

However, when I read your remark about “the rules we collectively agree upon as defining civilized conduct,” I have to say that these days there’s less observance of the rules…or less collective agreement about the rules…than there used to be.

The reasons are manifold. The deterioration of the structure of the American family. Less adherence to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Progressive education.

It all adds up to a deterioration in the social order. We shouldn’t be surprised that government is more willing than ever before to force us–or attempt to force us–to behave as we did in the recent past, when more of us voluntarily followed the rules defining civilized conduct.

Nature abhors a vacuum, after all. When parents abrogate their responsibility for what their children see and hear and read–or for the soft drinks they consume–there will be no shortage of public people willing to take on those formerly private responsibilities. It’s for our own good, after all.

I seriously think he needs to go on a retreat down to Texas for a month or so to re-calibrate.

As an aside, have you ever noticed that all those morning clowns wear the same nerdy glasses that must be the new “hip” for politicos. First it was Steve Ratner, then Joe Scarborough, then a week later Tom Brokaw shows up wearing them, and then Barnicle follows. Just waiting for Cornelius Huntsman to seal the deal. Lemmings!

Indeed, laws should be enacted to limit the accessibility to such material so that children are protected.

I am more concerned about the subtle anti-Christian worldview in what is considered “good” entertainment. And that goes all the way back to “wholesome” programs such as Father Knows Best and Andy Griffith.

I lay the responsibility for that at the feet of the Christian Church. The pablum it has offered over the past 50 to 60 years has left Christians ill-equipped at discerning anti-Christian worldviews, and like leaven those worldviews have permeated our culture.

davidk on January 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Allow me to make my position a little clearer. I think it is the responsibility of both the citizens and their representative government to promote good morals, and to censor certain things which are a bad influence on society. It is true that the church must lead, but the church cannot lead, if family and society does not follow. It is only when all of our society(including our government) promotes righteousness and condemns vice, that a truly just society can flourish.

However, laws must fit the people to whom are being governed. Our society has grown so corrupt, that trying to censor many of these things now certainly would not yield the intended result. We are losing battle after battle and being forced to retreat further and further back. That is not to say the we should retreat altogether and forever, or become lax in our own morals, only that we alter our strategy of attack. Or as Samuel Adams so accurately put it:

“The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.”